Author  G, 

JUN27'T6 


THE 

American  Doctrine  of 
Shipping  Rights 


An  American  Marine  for  American  Commerce 
Was  the  Policy  of  the  Fathers 


By  William  W.  Bates 

Former  Commissioner  of  Navigation.    Author  of  Ameri- 
can Marine  and  American  Navigation, 
Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co. 


READ  "AMERICAN  NAVIGATION" 


Reprinted  from 
"THE  ARENA" 
'The  Shipping  Society  of  America" 
October,  1905 


Copyright,  1905,  by  Albert  Brandt. 


The  Arena 


fl  TWENTIETH   CENTURY   REVIEW  OF  OPINION 


EDITED  BY 


B.  O.  FLOWER 


This  high-class  original  review  has  recently  been  purchased  by  Albert 
Brandt.  It  is  the  purpose  of  the  management  to  make  "The  Arena"  in- 
dispensable to  men  and  women  who  think.  Eminent  and  authoritative  con- 
tributors will  from  month  to  month  give  their  best  thoughts  on 


A  number  of  improvements  and  popular  features  will  be  introduced,  among 
the  first  of  which  will  be  the  reintroduction  of  finely-executed  frontispiece 
portraits  of  leading  thinkers  and  contributors. 

Each  month  it  will  contain  a  full-page  cartoon  drawn  expressly  for  "The 
Arena"  by  Dan.  Beard,  the  famous  artist  and  cartoonist. 

Beginning  with  the  July  issue  we  shall  publish  a  monthly  editorial  survey 
of  the  most  momentous  happenings  in  the  political,  economic,  religious  and 
educational  worlds,  together  with  a  summary  of  scientific  discoveries  and  an 
epitome  of  advance  movements  in  art,  literature  and  the  drama.  This  depart- 
ment will  make  "The  Arena"  especially  valuable  to  current-event  clubs  as 
well  as  to  the  general  reader. 

Subscription  price,  $2. 50  per  annum.     Single  copies  •  twenty-five  cents. 


Boston,  Mass. -Th6    AfSnQ -Trenton,  N.  J. 


Ethics 

Economics 

Politics 


Science 
Religion 
Education 
Art 


Literature 
Music 

The  Drama 


Foreign  postage  fifty  cents. 


ALBERT  BRANDT:  PUBLISHER 


THE  AMERICAN  DOCTRINE  OF  SHIPPING-RIGHTS. 


By  William  W.  Bates, 
Ex-United  States  Commissioner  of  Navigation. 


IT  IS  the  teaching  of  history  that  con- 
tact with  the  ocean  has  been  highly 
influential  in  forming  the  character  of 
nations — increasing  their  courage  and 
love  of  freedom  and  developing  the  means 
of  their  wealth  and  power.  This  is  why 
in  every  enlightened  country  the  benefits 
of  navigation  are  fully  appreciated. 
Every  people  whose  territory  touches  the 
ocean,  its  rivers  and  harbors  furnishing 
sites  for  towns  and  cities  and  abodes  of 
civilization,  are  naturally  blessed  in  great 
degree.  To  other  industries  they  may 
add  shipbuilding,  transportation  and  trade 
with  foreign  countries.  If  well-governed, 
they  may  grow  rich  and  powerful  on  land 
and  sea,  and  exert  much  influence  on  the 
progress  of  mankind.  But  native  skill 
must  be  applied ;  shipping  must  be  home- 
built  and  home-employed  and  commerce 
conducted  by  citizens,  or  its  natural  ad- 
vantages will  do  the  nation  little  good. 
Alien  merchants  using  foreign  shipping 
will  not  aid  very  much  in  developing  in- 
dustries away  from  home — they  work  for 
their  own  country  and  flag  everywhere 
they  go. 

Only  one  of  the  larger  nations  of  the 
earth — the  United  States  of  America — 
has  failed  for  some  time  to  prize  and  pro- 
tect a  large  part  of  its  navigation — that 
engaged  in  foreign  trade.  This  part,  by 
a  mistaken  policy,  virtually  thrust  upon 
the  government  by  a  rival,  has  long  been 
unprotected  and  consequently  is  now  an 
almost  vanished  industry.  It  is  hoped, 
however,  that  this  policy  will  be  soon  cor- 
rected and  that  once  more  the  American 
ship  will  win  her  way  and  enjoy  her  rights. 

In  February,  1904,  a  joint  commission 
of  Congress  was  appointed  to  investigate 
the  situation  of  the  American  merchant 
marine  during  the  recess  and  to  prepare 
a  bill  to  meet  its  demands  in  a  constitu- 
tional manner.    It  was  developed  that 


the  view  of  the  country  favored  the  re- 
establishment  of  our  early  policy.  This 
called  for  discriminating  duties  of  tonnage 
and  of  tariff,  as  regulations  of  foreign 
commerce,  the  constitution  not  sanction- 
ing the  payment  of  "  bounties  "  or  "  sub- 
sidies" to  the  marine  in  general.  Con- 
trary to  expectation,  the  commission  re- 
ported a  "subvention"  or  subsidy  bill, 
which,  however,  was  not  put  upon  passage, 
the  report  in  its  favor  by  a  majority  of 
the  commission  being  weak  and  unsatis- 
factory. It  is  possible  that  this  measure 
may  be  offered  at  the  next  session,  but 
is  by  no  means  certain  of  enactment;  for 
ample  discussion  must  show  that  its  prin- 
ciple is  false,  and  that  unless  our  present 
policy  shall  be  discontinued  there  can  be 
no  hope  for  an  American  marine,  no  mat- 
ter how  much  treasure  may  be  squandered 
on  the  experiment. 

ADVANTAGE  OF  SHIPPING  POWER. 

The  relations  of  national  advancement 
to  navigation  and  commerce  are  naturally 
such,  that  the  nations  accomplishing  their 
improvement  and  extension  have  ever 
developed  a  power  of  controlling  the  cir- 
cumstances of  others.  An  intelligent 
observation  of  Sir  Walter  Raleigh  was 
grounded  on  this  fact: 

"Whosoever  commands  the  sea  com- 
mands the  trade;  whosoever  commands 
the  trade  of  the  world  commands  the 
riches  of  the  world,  and  consequently  the 
world  itself." 

The  riches  of  the  world  do  not  all  re- 
side in  traffic,  though  it  is  the  idea  of  some 
commercial  countries  that,  for  them,  the 
marts  of  trade  are  the  indispensable  pos- 
session. Raleigh's  nation  has  paid  great 
attention  to  his  maxim.  The  mastery 
of  navigation  and  the  command  of  com- 
merce have  been  uppermost  in  the  mind 


2 


The  American  Doctrine  of  Shipping  Rights. 

of  Berwick-on-Tweed, 


of  its  government  in  every  movement  town  of  Berwick-on- iweed,  or  of  the 

made  on  land  or  sea  for  two  hundred  and  lands,  islands,  plantations  or  territories 

fifty   years.    The   possession   of  forty-  in  Asia,  Africa  or  America,  to  his  Majesty 

three  colonies  or  dependencies  tells  a  belonging,  as  the  proprietors  and  right 

long  story  of  naval  power,  conquest  and  owners  thereof,  and  whereof  the  master 

accumulation  of  wealth.    Great  Britain's  -A  tW..WthS  at  least  of  the  mariners 


command  of  the  sea  now  begins  with  the 
control  of  shipbuilding;  takes  root  with 
sure  ascendency  in  shipowning;  branches 
out  with  supremacy  in  underwriting,  and 
is  perfected  in  power  by  mercantile  ad- 
vantage and  the  consequent  financial 
rule  of  debtor  nations :  those  without  ship- 
ping. To  her  other  instrumentalities  of 
domination  she  adds  a  great  navy. 

THE  WORK  OF  SHIP  PROTECTION. 

The  basis  for  this  commanding  posi- 
tion—of "Ruler  of  the  Seas" — was  laid 
in  a  navigation  act  (1651-60)  the  most 
efficacious  ever  enforced.  Its  protection 
to  ship  employment  was  absolute.  Says 
a  British  historian : 

"  The  result  of  that  act  transcended  the 
wildest  dream  of  Lombard  and  Venetian 
avarice,  or  the  grandest  schemes  of  Span- 
ish and  Portuguese  conquest.  It  not  only 
secured  to  the  people  who  enacted  it  the 
greatest  share  of  the  world's  carrying 
trade,  but  the  trade  also  knew  its 
master  and  followed  with  becoming  ser- 
vility." 

Following  is  the  principal  section  of 
the  perfected  act  which  gave  England  her 
start  as  the  autocrat  of  commerce,  virtu- 
ally compelling  other  countries  to  follow 
her  example  in  regard  to  ship  protection : 

BRITISH  NAVIGATION  ACT. 

"And  it  is  further  enacted,  etc.,  that 
no  goods  or  commodities  whatever  of  the 
growth,  production  or  manufacture  of 
Africa,  Asia  or  America,  or  any  part  there- 
of, be  imported  into  England,  Ireland,  or 
Wales,  islands  of  Guernsey  and  Jersey, 
or  town  of  Berwick-on-Tweed,  in  any 
other  ship  or  ships,  vessel  or  vessels  what- 
ever, but  in  such  as  do  truly  and  without 
fraud,  belong  only  to  the  people  of  Eng- 
land or  Ireland,  dominion  of  Wales,  or 


and  three-fourths  at  least  of  the  mariners 
are  English,  under  the  penalty  of  the 
forfeiture  of  all  such  goods  and  commodi- 
ties, and  of  the  ship  or  vessel  in  which 
they  were  imported,  with  all  her  guns, 
tackle,  furniture  and  apparel." 

Thus,  absolute  prohibition  protected 
British  carrying  with  the  greater  part  of 
the  world,  while,  with  the  continent  of 
Europe  only,  differential  duties  were 
applied.  Necessarily,  rival  European 
nations  regulated  their  commerce  in  view 
of  the  English  system:  prohibitively  for 
their  coastwise  and  colonial  trades,  as  in 
Spain  and  Portugal,  and  discriminatively 
in  duties  for  foreign  traffic.  England 
was  not  long  in  following  up  her  naviga- 
tion law  with  open  warfare  on  the  ship- 
ping of  the  Netherlands,  then  doing  a 
large  share  of  carriage  for  other  countries. 
By  breaking  up  these  fixed  relations,  new 
ones  favorable  to  English  trade  might  be 
made.  In  this  advancement  the  navy 
was  the  main  support.  In  a  few  years' 
warfare  the  Dutch  marine  was  destroyed. 
British  statesmen  said  it  was  to  break  up 
a  monopoly  of  navigation ;  historians  say 
it  was  to  establish  one  monopoly  in  place 
of  another. 

ANTI-MONOPOLY  OF  NAVIGATION. 

When  the  United  States  of  America 
came  into  the  arena  of  ocean  commerce  a 
new  problem  confronted  England.  Un- 
der her  laws,  only  her  own  flag  could  carry 
between  any  of  the  ports  of  America,  or 
from  them  to  her  ports  in  Europe.  Amer- 
ican vessels  under  the  stars  and  stripes 
would  be  excluded  from  these  ports  both 
in  America  and  Europe,  if  no  relaxation 
were  made.  This  was  done,  but  not  by 
a  statute  for  a  number  of  years.  A  royal 
proclamation  was  issued  annually,  the 
ports  in  Great  Britain  were  declared 
open,  but  those  in  the  Provinces  and  the 


The  American  Doctrine  of  Shipping  Rights. 


3 


West  Indies  were  reported  closed,  to  ves- 
sels of  the  United  States.  The  governor 
of  the  East  Indies,  then  having  the  power 
so  to  do,  permitted  American  vessels  to 
trade  there  under  conditions  such  as  other 
countries  enjoyed. 

For  the  better  protection  of  her  ship- 
ping, Great  Britain  refused  outright  to 
make  any  treaty  of  commerce  and  navi- 
gation with  the  United  States,  and  to  this 
day  she  has  made  none  except  the  meager, 
time-limited  convention  of  1815,  condi- 
tioned, at  her  instance,  for  the  mutual 
suspension  of  discriminating  duties  in 
direct  trans- Atlantic  trade,  securing  thus 
a  great  advantage.  The  United  States 
had  no  difficulty  in  getting  desirable 
treaties  with  France,  Holland  and  Sweden, 
and  afterward  with  other  countries,  favor- 
able to  fair  and  equitable  traffic. 

The  peculiar  course  of  Great  Britain 
caused  a  study  of  the  subject  of  interna- 
tional navigation  the  world  over,  especi- 
ally by  American  statesmen  intent  upon 
securing  the  natural  rights  of  a  young  and 
independent  maritime  nation.  What 
these  rights  were  became  matter  for  seri- 
ous thought  and  considerate  but  deter- 
mined action.  Ambitious  schemes,  such 
as  ultimately  carrying  and  conducting 
the  commerce  of  the  world,  were  not  enter- 
tained. Only  fair  and  equitable  com- 
merce was  wanted — no  other  appeared 
desirable. 

TRANSPORTATION  A  PART  OF  COMMERCE. 

Considering  the  question  in  its  larger 
aspects,  as  did  Benjamin  Franklin  and 
other  of  our  early  statesmen,  transporta- 
tion is  a  part  of  the  commerce  between 
two  nations,  and  in  direct  trade  plainly 
belongs  to  each  country  to  do ;  but  if  one 
country  has  not  the  vessels,  and  the  other 
has,  then  the  whole  transportation  mani- 
festly belongs  to  that  one  and  cannot  be 
justly  claimed  by  any  other. 

While  some  nations  unskilled  in  navi- 
gation have  been  content  to  have  no  ship- 
ping and  only  a  passive  commerce,  others 
qualified  to  build  and  sail  have  been  alert 
to  the  importance  of  an  active  commerce 


carried  on  by  their  own  vessels.  A  de- 
pendence on  foreign  shipping,  and  the 
payment  of  freight  to  vessels  of  other 
countries,  creates  or  increases  balances  of 
commerce  against  a  country.  Alexander 
Hamilton,  one  of  the  greatest  statesmen 
of  our  country,  said:  "To  preserve  the 
balance  of  trade  [commerce]  in  favor  of  a 
nation  ought  to  be  a  leading  aim  of  its 
policy."  Mr.  Williamson,  of  North  Car- 
olina, said  in  1790:  "By  permitting  for- 
eigners to  carry  our  produce  for  us,  in 
order  to  pay  for  the  fine  goods  they  fur- 
nish us,  we  have  to  raise  more  from  the 
soil  by  one-third  than  if  we  carried  it 
ourselves." 

Foreign  shipping  dependence  also  en- 
counters the  disadvantages  of  foreign 
wars,  scarcity  of  vessels,  high  rates  of 
freight  and  dear  insurance,  without  cer- 
tainty of  service  at  any  cost;  hence  a 
national  shipping  is  an  economic  necessity 
for  a  maritime  people,  and  absolutely  so, 
to  maintain  independence  and  perfect 
prosperity.  Shipless  nations  often  be- 
come a  prey  to  the  navigating  class,  as 
trade  is  always  gained  to  alien  carrying 
nations,  while  their  profits  enlarge  and 
grow  unfair.  The  shipless  nation,  too, 
is  always  in  debt,  generally  backward  and 
seldom  prosperous. 

THE  TRUE  THEORY  OF  COMMERCE. 

Regarding  the  true  theory  of  commerce, 
said  Rufus  King  in  1818: 

"As  all  nations  have  equal  rights,  and 
each  may  claim  equal  advantages  in  its 
intercourse  with  others,  the  true  theory 
of  international  commerce  is  one  of  equal- 
ity and  reciprocal  benefits.  This  gives  to 
skill  and  to  capital  their  just  and  natural 
advantages;  any  other  scheme  is  merely 
artificial;  and  so  far  as  it  aims  at  ad- 
vantages over  those  who  adhere  to  the 
open  system,  it  aims  at  profit  at  the  ex- 
pense of  natural  justice." 

The  British  system  had  the  fault  thus 
described.  The  colonists  were  treated 
as  subordinate  to  their  fellow-subjects; 
their  industries  and  the  use  of  their  vessels 


1 


The  American  Doctrine  of  Shipping  Rights. 


being  placed  under  inferior  regulations. 
It  was  this  denial  of  equality  that  really 
caused  the  revolution  of  1776.  It  was 
natural,  therefore,  that  an  American 
system  of  commerce  should  look  to  pro- 
tection of  some  kind,  that  should  even  up 
disadvantages  in  the  footing  of  vessels 
and  conduce  to  the  conduct  of  "  fair  com- 
merce "  and  a  just  sharing  of  transporta- 
tion with  the  countries  with  whom  we 
traded.  The  first  two  commercial  trea- 
ties made  after  the  revolution  exhibit  the 
care  of  our  early  statesmen  in  this  regard. 
The  right  to  protect  against  inequalities 
of  footing  in  navigation  was  reserved  in 
the  preambles  to  these  treaties  both  pro- 
claimed in  1783.  We  quote  from  that  of 
the  Netherlands. 

The  contracting  parties : 

"Desiring  to  ascertain  in  a  permanent 
and  equitable  manner,  the  rules  to  be 
observed  relative  to  the  commerce  and 
correspondence  which  they  intend  to  es- 
tablish between  their  respective  states, 
countries,  and  inhabitants  have  judged 
that  the  said  end  cannot  be  better  ob- 
tained than  by  establishing  the  most  per- 
fect equality  and  reciprocity  for  the  basis 
of  their  agreements,  and  by  avoiding  all 
those  burdensome  preferences  which  are 
usually  the  sources  of  debate,  embarrass- 
ment, and  discontent;  by  leaving  also 
each  party  at  liberty  to  make,  respecting 
commerce  and  navigation,  such  ulterior 
regulations  as  it  shall  find  most  conveni- 
ent to  itself,  and  by  founding  the  advan- 
tages of  commerce  solely  upon  recipro- 
cal utility  and  the  just  rules  of  free  inter- 
course; reserving  withal  to  each  party 
the  liberty  of  admitting  at  its  pleasure 
other  nations  to  a  participation  of  the 
same  advantages." 

OUR  CONTENTION  FOR  FAIR  WEST 
INDIA  COMMERCE. 

After  the  above-mentioned  treaties 
were  made,  nearly  all  our  states  enacted 
regulations  of  commerce — described  as 
"discriminating  duties" — for  the  pro- 
tection of  their  carrying  trade,  being  free 


so  to  do.  When  the  constitution  was 
formed  a  compact  was  necessarily  entered 
into,  that  the  duty  and  power  of  such  pro- 
tection should  be  taken  over  by  the  Fed- 
eral government.  That  is  the  signifi- 
cance of  clause  3  of  section  8  of  article  L 
of  the  Constitution,  providing  for  the  reg- 
ulation of  foreign  trade.  In  conformity 
with  the  compact  and  under  the  power 
granted,  the  first  Congress,  in  1789,  took 
up  its  duty  towards  shipping,  and  in  a 
short  time  an  American  marine  was  under 
way  encouraged  and  protected  in  its  em- 
ployment. Great  Britain  was  alone  in 
her  opposition  and  antagonism.  Herself 
the  best  protected  shipping  nation  on 
earth,  a  strong  believer  in  her  right  to 
keep  down  rivalry  and  to  monopolize,  if 
she  could,  the  commerce  and  carriage  of 
the  world,  she  could  not  tolerate  "fair 
commerce"  with  a  former  rebel  colony. 
For  twenty -five  years  the  British  ministry 
watched  and  worked  to  coerce  the  Ameri- 
can government  into  an  abandonment  of 
ship  protection  in  the  trade  between  the 
two  countries.  Finally  this  was  effected 
after  the  close  of  the  war  of  1812,  the 
West  Indies  remaining  closed.  The  al- 
ternative was  to  continue  the  war.  Giv- 
ing way  to  Great  Britain  in  1815  initiated 
a  change  of  system  that  should  never  have 
been  made.  A  most  unfair  commerce 
resulted  from  it.  British  shipping 
brought  out  such  goods  as  our  market 
would  accept;  then  they  took  cargo  for 
the  West  Indies;  there  they  loaded  for 
the  United  States;  discharged  cargo  here, 
and  loading  again  they  sailed  homeward 
bound,  having  paid  no  "discriminating 
duties"  for  the  protection  of  "Yankee" 
ships.  American  vessels  could  load  and 
sail  for  a  British  European  port,  take  in 
ballast  and  return  home.  They  could 
not  then  load  and  sail  to  a  British  West 
India  port  under  penalty  of  confiscation 
of  hull  and  cargo.  They  paid  no  dis- 
criminating duties,  except  for  lights  in 
the  British  ports  in  Europe,  but  neither 
could  they  get  the  carriage  of  foreign- 
owned  cargoes  with  their  discriminating 
duties  off ;  the  British  merchant  freighted 


The  American  Doctrine  of  Shipping  Rights. 


the  ship  of  his  own  flag,  for  such  were  the 
ethics  of  his  philosophy,  and  the  disre- 
gard that  he  paid  to  the  principle  of  re- 
ciprocal benefits.  Entitled  to  half  the 
transportation  of  the  commerce  with 
Great  Britain,  the  United  States  could 
get  but  one-quarter.  Entitled  to  half  the 
transportation  of  the  commerce  with  the 
West  Indies,  they  were  refused  any 
of  it. 

Finding  how  the  convention  operated, 
Congress  was  not  long  in  resolving  to 
have  the  ports  of  the  West  Indies  opened, 
or  the  disadvantage  of  the  convention 
reduced  to  a  minimum.  In  1819  it  would 
terminate,  but,  having  other  negotiations 
pending,  England  had  it  in  her  power  to 
compel  an  extension  of  time,  and  this  she 
did  for  ten  years  in  1818.  In  1818,  Con- 
gress passed  an  act  to  the  effect  that  Amer- 
ican ports  were  closed  to  all  vessels  com- 
ing from  ports  which  were  closed  to  ves- 
sels of  the  United  States.  In  the  Senate 
the  vote  was  31  to  2,  and  in  the  House, 
123  to  16.  The  British  policy  was  "ex- 
clusively directed  against  us,"  the  vessels 
of  other  countries  being  indulged  in  a  free 
intercourse.  In  this  wrongful  policy 
Britain  stood  alone,  "American  vessels 
being  admitted  into  the  French,  Spanish, 
Dutch  and  Swedish  colonies." 

NATURAL  BIGHTS  SHOULD  BE  PBO- 
TECTED. 

James  Barbour,  of  Virginia,  in  an  able 
speech  said: 

"  Vain,  foolish,  your  resolutions  to  build 
ships,  unless  you  protect  your  navigation. 
It  is  not  to  the  superior  fixtures  of  your 
vessels,  or  the  ampleness  of  their  supplies, 
you  are  to  look  for  victory,  but  to  the 
number  and  experience  of  your  sailors. 
If  you  suffer  the  power  who  looks  with 
jealousy  on  your  rising  commerce  and 
with  envy  on  the  glory  of  your  navy,  to 
exclude  you  from  the  participation  of 
those  advantages  which  of  right,  as  being 
derived  from  nature,  belong  to  you, 
abandon  all  thoughts  of  an  efficient  ma- 
rine, and  withdraw  from  the  ocean." 


It  was  estimated  that  138,000  tons  of 
shipping,  manned  by  6,000  seamen,  sailed 
annually  from  our  ports  to  the  British 
West  Indies  with  exports  to  the  value  of 
$6,000,000 — a  commerce  in  winch  we  had 
no  participation  whatever.  Mr.  Barbour 
thus  illustrated  the  case: 

"A  British  ship  arrives  in  the  United 
States  direct  from  Great  Britain,  with  a 
cargo,  unloads  in  one  of  our  ports,  takes 
in  a  cargo  of  lumber,  goes  to  the  West 
Indies,  delivers  it,  and  finding  freight 
scarce,  she  sails  to  New  Orleans,  procures 
a  load  of  tobacco,  cotton,  etc.,  and  pro- 
ceeds to  Great  Britain ;  here  two  or  three 
of  the  freights  belong  of  right  to  the  ship- 
ping of  America,  as  being  the  products  of 
America.  Yet  British  ships,  from  the 
policy  complained  of,  monopolize  the 
whole.  An  American  vessel  going  from 
a  Northern  or  an  Eastern  port  with  a  view 
to  take  a  cargo  for  Europe,  goes  in  ballast 
to  New  Orleans.  Even  from  the  colo- 
nies in  North  America  vessels  are  daily 
entering  our  ports  laden  with  plaster,  fish 
and  the  products  of  their  colonies;  these 
are  commuted  in  some  of  our  ports  for 
such  cargoes  as  are  wanted  in  the  West 
Indies,  whither  they  sell  or  exchange  their 
cargo,  and  procure  a  freight  in  the  pro- 
duce of  the  islands.  Again,  British  ships 
engaged  in  the  West  India  trade,  fre- 
quently leave  home  with  cargoes  of  little 
value,  such  as  earthenware,  coal,  salt, 
etc.,  come  to  the  United  States,  procure 
cargoes  for  the  West  Indies,  and  return 
home  freighted  with  the  productions  of 
the  islands;  while  the  American  trade  is 
limited  to  a  direct  trade  only  with  the 
possessions  of  Great  Britain  in  Europe. 
They  return  generally  in  ballast"  [since 
the  convention  of  1815]. 

THE  VESSEL'S  BIGHT  TO  CABBY  THE 
CABGO. 

It  was  not  the  "colonial  system"  to 
which  Americans  objected,  but  a  new 
development  of  the  monopolistic  policy. 
On  this  point  Rufus  King,  a  member  of 
the  constitutional  convention,  said: 


The  American  Doctrine  of  Shipping  Rights. 


6 

"Our  commercial  system  is  an  open 
one — our  ports  and  our  commerce  are 
free  to  all — we  neither  possess,  nor  desire 
to  possess,  colonies;  nor  do  we  object 
that  others  should  possess  them,  unless 
thereby  the  general  commerce  of  the  world 
be  so  abridged  that  we  are  restrained  in 
our  intercourse  with  foreign  commerce 
wanting  our  supplies,  and  furnishing  in 
return  those  which  we  need. 

"But  it  is  not  to  the  colonial  system, 
but  to  a  new  principle,  which  in  modern 
times  has  been  incorporated  with  those  of 
the  navigation  act  of  Great  Britain,  that 
we  now  object.  According  to  this  act  no 
direct  trade  or  intercourse  can  be  carried 
on  between  a  colony  and  a  foreign  coun- 
try; but  by  the  'free  port  bill'  passed  in 
the  present  reign,  the  English  contraband 
trade,  which  had  long  been  pursued,  in 
violation  of  Spanish  laws,  between  Eng- 
lish and  Spanish  colonies,  was  sanctioned 
and  regulated  by  an  act  of  Parliament; 
and,  since  the  independence  of  the  United 
States,  England  has  passed  laws  opening 
an  intercourse  and  trade  between  her 
West  India  colonies  and  the  United 
States,  and  excluding  the  shipping  of  the 
United  States,  has  confined  the  same  to 
English  ships  and  seamen;  departing  by 
this  law  not  only  from  the  principles  of 
the  navigation  act,  which  she  was  at  lib- 
erty to  do,  by  opening  a  direct  intercourse 
between  the  colonies  and  a  foreign  coun- 
try, but  controlling,  which  she  had  no 
authority  to  do,  the  reciprocal  rights  of  the 
United  States  to  employ  their  own  vessels 
to  carry  it  on. 

"  Colonies  being  parts  of  the  nation, 
are  subjected  to  its  regulations ;  but  when 
an  intercourse  and  trade  are  opened  be- 
tween colonies  and  a  foreign  country,  the 
foreign  country  becomes  a  party,  and  has 
a  reciprocal  claim  to  employ  its  own  ves- 
sels equally  in  the  intercourse  and  trade 
with  such  colony,  as  with  any  other  part 
of  the  nation  to  which  they  belong.  Gov- 
ernments owe  it  to  the  trust  confided  to 
them,  carefully  to  watch  over,  and  by  all 
suitable  means  to  promote,  the  general 
welfare ;  and  while  on  account  of  a  small 


or  doubtful  inconvenience  they  will  not 
disturb  a  beneficial  intercourse  between 
their  people  and  a  foreign  country,  they 
ought  not  to  omit  the  interposition  of  their 
corrective  authority,  whenever  an  im- 
portant public  interest  is  evaded,  or  the 
national  reputation  affected." 

RESULTS  OF  OUR  CONTENTION. 

As  the  islands  had  to  have  our  supplies, 
we  did  not  lose  the  trade,  which,  under 
their  regulations,  was  carried  on  by  our 
vessels  through  neutral  ports,  the  British 
carrying  between  these  and  their  own. 
There  were  thus  two  freights  in  place  of 
one,  much  to  the  cost  of  the  islanders. 
British  commerce,  and  the  subjects  of  the 
King,  suffered  under  this  state  of  things 
for  twelve  years  before  his  Majesty  would 
recognize  the  principle  that  American 
vessels  had  a  right  to  carry  export  cargoes 
to  any  extent.  In  1830  the  drastic  course 
pursued  opened  the  ports  which  had  been 
closed  in  1783.  The  ports  of  the  world 
are  open  to  American  shipping  to-day, 
but  ninety  per  cent,  of  them  might  as  well 
be  closed  to  our  vessels  as  to  have  to  run 
them  under  a  policy  such  as  now  virtually 
excludes  them  on  peril  of  ruin  to  owners. 
And  we  are  told  if  we  undertake  to  change 
this  policy,  which  but  for  Great  Britain 
we  would  never  have  had,  there  will  be 
dire  retaliation  leveled  at  the  interests  of 
American  farmers.  Sentiment  so  unwor- 
thy did  not  move  the  patriotic  legislators 
in  1818,  led  by  a  farmer  of  Virginia,  Hon. 
James  Barbour.  About  this  point  he  said : 

"The  exports  from  this  country  to  the 
dependencies  in  question  may  be  esti- 
mated at  $6,000,000  and  the  question  to 
be  discussed  is,  what  will  be  the  influence 
of  this  measure  upon  the  price  of  the 
article  thus  exported  ?  If  it  be  necessary 
to  admit  that  Great  Britain  can  do  and 
will  do  without  them,  then  it  would  be  in 
vain  to  disguise  the  fact  that  the  price  of 
these  articles  would  diminish,  and  in  so 
far  the  value  be  impaired  and  by  conse- 
quence the  agricultural  interest  injured. 
But  if  it  were  revealed  from  Heaven  that 


The  American  Doctrine  of  Shipping  Rights. 


this  would  be  the  consequence,  still  he 
hoped  that  agriculturists  were  prepared, 
when  a  just  regard  to  the  interests  and  to 
the  character  of  their  country  required  it, 
to  make  the  sacrifice  which  the  emergency 
called  for.  He  represented  farmers  and 
agriculturists ;  his  interest  was  like  theirs, 
and  he,  therefore,  presumed  he  spoke 
their  sentiments,  when  he  proclaimed  his 
readiness  to  look  across  any  sacrifice  of 
their  interest,  when  the  welfare  and  dig- 
nity of  the  whole  people  of  the  United 
States  demanded  it." 

ENUMERATION  OF  SHIPPING  RIGHTS. 

Thus,  as  we  have  seen,  and  as  the 
writer  has  elsewhere  shown  from  the  pro- 
ceedings of  Congress,*  the  American 
doctrine  in  relation  to  the  foreign  carry- 
ing trade  is  this:  American  shipping  has 
the  natural  right  and  is  entitled, 

1.  To  carry  American  exports  to  any 
country  whose  ports  are  open  to  them. 

2.  To  carry  American  commerce  be- 
tween the  states  and  other  countries, 
their  vessels  mutually  participating  in  the 
carriage  of  imports  and  exports,  to  the 
extent  of  one-half. 

3.  To  carry  all  the  commerce  between 
the  United  States  and  another  country, 
if  it  has  no  vessels  with  which  to  do  its 
share  of  carriage. 

4.  To  carry  all  American  domestic  com- 
merce— coasting,  lake  and  river. 

5.  The  government  of  the  United 
States  has  the  natural  right,  and  is  en- 
titled to  regulate  its  foreign  trade  in  a 
manner  to  secure  and  protect  all  Ameri- 
can shipping  rights  against  the  adverse 
footing,  or  protective  policies,  of  foreign 
countries. 

6.  The  government  of  the  United 
States  is  under  a  constitutional  compact 
with  the  maritime  states  to  perform  its 
duty  in  the  enactment  of  proper  laws  for 
the  encouragement  and  protection  of 
American  navigation  and  to  see  that  en- 
gagements with  foreign  nations  involve 

♦See  American  Navigation,  1902.  Houghton, 
Mifflin  &  Company,  Boston  and  New  York. 


no  sacrifice  of  the  shipping  interest  of  the 
United  States. 

THE  PROBABLE  ACTION  OF  CONGRESS. 

The  foregoing  principles  should  and 
will  undoubtedly  prevail  in  any  measure 
that  Congress  will  enact  for  the  recovery 
of  the  foreign  carrying  trade,  which  is 
now  done  to  the  extent  of  ninety-two  per 
cent,  by  the  vessels  of  foreign  countries. 
Of  the  annual  importations,  about  fifty- 
four  per  cent,  arrive  by  vessels  not  be- 
longing to  the  countries  of  production, 
i.  e.,  by  indirect  carriage.    This  is  in 
consequence  of  the  act  of  Congress,  of 
1828,  opening  our  ports  to  vessels  of  all 
countries,  with  cargoes  the  production 
of  any  or  every  country,  on  the  same  foot- 
ing at  the  customs  as  our  own  ships, 
whenever   any   foreign   country  would 
reciprocate,    though    reciprocation  was 
of  no  real  value.    At  the  time  this  act  was 
passed,   American   ships   competed  in 
British  ports  with  British  ships  ;  in  French 
ports  with  French  ships ;  in  Chinese  ports 
with  Chinese  vessels,  and  so  on,  for  freight 
to  the  United  States.    Now,  in  these,  and 
in  all  ports  whatever,  American  vessels 
have  to  compete  with  the  vessels  of  all 
nations — a   manifold   competition,  say, 
of  tenfold  the  extent  that  is  prudent  or 
necessary.    It  is  this  excess  of  compe- 
tition that  the  forthcoming  congressional 
legislation  should  seek  to  set  aside.  The 
conventions  standing  in  the  way  of  this 
course  may  all  be  terminated  by  giving 
the  notice  of  one  year  required,  if  one 
country  or  the  other  came  to  believe  that 
the  convention  operated  unfairly  and  was 
detrimental.    It  has  been  to  the  interest 
of  many  countries  to  let  these  conventions 
stand,  and  several  have  devised  and  ap- 
plied other  protections — to  the  damage  of 
the  United  States.    The  act  should  ex- 
tend far  enough  to  nullify  these;  and  it 
may  follow  that  other  nations  will  have 
to  adopt  the  principles  of  our  act,  as  this 
article  has  set  them  out. 

It  is  not  the  intention  and  would  not 
seem  to  be  good  policy  to  lay  any  extra 
burdens  on  direct  trade  and  transporta- 


s 


The  American  Doctrine  of  Shipping  Rights. 


Hon,  unless  foreign  countries  take  that 
course,  which  will  not  probably  happen. 
Acknowledging  the  right  of  all  nations  to 
carry  their  own  commerce  and  standing 
for  the  freedom  of  international  inter- 
course, the  United  States  seeks  only  jus- 
tice for  her  own  people  in  respect  to  navi- 
gation. They  are  willing  to  have  a  fair 
competition,  for  instance,  between  their 
own  vessels  and  those  of  Great  Britain 
for  the  commerce  between  the  two  coun- 
tries and  their  dependencies,  but  not  for 
the  commerce  of  the  United  States  with 
France,  Germany,  Brazil,  China,  etc. 
Moreover,  students  of  the  subject  have 
satisfied  themselves  that  there  cannot  be 
a  fair  competition  with  unequal  footing, 
and  that  American  vessels  cannot  survive 
with  less  'protection  than  others.  It  is 
taken  as  proved  in  our  experience  that 
Great  Britain  has  advantages  for  naviga- 
tion in  excess  of  all  other  nations,  and 
that  the  United  States  have  disadvantages 
beyond  all  others.  If  this  were  not  so, 
British  shipping  would  not  be  so  redun- 
dant as  it  is,  nor  American  shipping  so 
insufficient.  Congress  should  therefore 
look  mainly  to  a  degree  of  handicapping 
requisite  to  equalize  conditions  for  com- 
petition with  British  vessels.  The  situa- 
tion was  similar  in  1789.  Our  regula- 
tions made  then  and  afterward,  judging 


from  history,  held  the  scales  of  competi- 
tion with  tolerable  equipoise;  that  was 
the  reason  the  British  were  discontented 
and  endeavored  to  get  our  policy  changed 
— protection  removed — as  they  seemed 
to  prefer  advantage  to  equality.  This 
course  might  be  expected  of  a  rival  who 
believes  it  is  for  him  to  carry  the  commerce 
of  "the  world." 

The  British  have  no  convention  with 
the  United  States  for  reciprocity  under 
the  act  of  1828.  Their  act  of  1849  met 
the  terms  of  that  act.  Though  they  have 
prospered  greatly  and  much  more  than 
others,  from  its  extravagant  liberality, 
they  have  never  left  a  stone  unturned  to 
find  and  apply  advantages,  fair  and  unfair, 
to  accomplish  the  monopoly  of  our  for- 
eign transportation.  Great  Britain  is 
now  the  best  protected  of  all  nations,  as 
the  United  States  is  the  least,  as  to  foreign 
trade,  yet  it  is  feared  by  some  that  she 
will  "retaliate"  if  we  compel  an  equali- 
zation of  advantages.  For  this  there 
would  be  no  moral  justification,  and 
therefore  no  such  action.  A  nation  that 
is  just  will  not  object  to  American  ship- 
protection  at  the  present  day,  especially 
as  nothing  could  be  accomplished  by 
exciting  the  resentment  of  the  American 
Republic.  William  W.  Bates. 

Denver,  Colo. 


"The  Brandt  Books" 

A  delight  to  book-lovers 


Net  Deliv- 

THE  GATE  BEAUTIFUL:  Being  Principles  Pr'"' 
and  Methods  in  Vital  Art  Education, 

John  Ward  Stimson.    Royal  Quarto.   Cloth,  $J. 50  $7.95 

— Same,  paper  covered,  Small  Quarto,     .    .  3.50  3.76 

ELEGIES:   ANCIENT  AND  MODERN, 

Mary  Lloyd.    Two  volumes.    Each  volume,  1.50  1.60 
Vol.  I.,  now  ready. 
Vol.  II.,  in  preparation. 

HOW  ENGLAND  AVERTED  A  REVOLU- 
TION OF  FORCE,  B.  O.  Flower,    .    .  1.25  1.35 

MOONBLIGHT  AND   SIX   FEET  OF 

ROMANCE,  Daniel  Carter  Beard,     .    .  1.25  1.35 

A   SHORT   HISTORY   OF   MONKS  AND 
MONASTERIES,  Alfred  Wesley  Wishart. 

Royal  Octavo,   3.50  3.68 

— Same,  1 2- mo.,  narrow  margins   1.50  1.62 

IN  NATURE'S  REALM,  Charles  C.  Abbott,  .  2.50  2.68 

CAPE  COD  BALLADS  and  Other  Verse, 

"Joe"  Lincoln  [Joseph  Crosby  Lincoln),    .  1.25      1. 33 

In  ordering,  always  specify  author,  title 
and  price. 


ALBERT  BRANDT:  PUBLISHER 
Trenton,  N.  J.  cV  Boston,  Mass. 


